Illinois Appellate Court: Capital One v. Macklin 2026 IL App Order is Rule 23

• The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, Fourth Division, issued an order in the case of Capital One v. Macklin on September 24, 2026.
• The order is officially cited as 2026 IL App (1st) 252648-U and carries the docket number 1-25-2648.
• This judicial document was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23, which generally means it is not considered legal precedent.
• Under Rule 23(e)(1), the order can only be cited as precedent in specific, limited circumstances; however, orders issued on or after January 1, 2021, may also be cited for persuasive purposes.
• The order resolves the specific dispute between Capital One and Macklin but does not establish binding law for other courts.

An order filed under this rule *can* be cited as precedent in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

The Illinois Appellate Court, First District, Fourth Division, recently issued an order in the matter of Capital One v. Macklin. This judicial filing, officially designated as 2026 IL App (1st) 252648-U, carries the docket number 1-25-2648 and was formally filed on September 24, 2026.

While the specific details of the underlying dispute between Capital One and Macklin are not publicly detailed in this procedural notice, the issuance of an order by an appellate court signifies a resolution or directive stemming from a review of a lower court's proceedings. Such orders are a routine part of the appellate process in Illinois, addressing various stages of litigation from procedural motions to final dispositions.

This particular document is noteworthy due to its classification under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23, a critical aspect that defines its legal weight and applicability within the state's judicial system.

A key characteristic of the order in Capital One v. Macklin is its designation under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23. This rule governs the publication and precedential value of appellate court orders and opinions. Specifically, Rule 23 dictates that orders filed under its provisions are generally not considered precedent and are not binding on other courts.

The primary purpose of Rule 23 is to manage the volume of appellate court decisions and to ensure that only opinions with significant precedential value or those establishing new legal principles are published as binding authority. This allows the appellate courts to efficiently resolve a large number of cases without overburdening the legal system with an excessive body of binding case law.

However, Rule 23 does include specific exceptions. An order filed under this rule *can* be cited as precedent in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1), such as to support contentions of double jeopardy, res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case. Additionally, for orders entered on or after January 1, 2021, they may be cited for persuasive purposes, although they do not constitute binding precedent.

The non-precedential nature of the 2026 IL App (1st) 252648-U order means that while it resolves the specific dispute between Capital One and Macklin, it does not establish a rule of law that other courts must follow in future, similar cases. Attorneys researching legal issues in Illinois would typically not rely on such an order as binding authority to support their arguments, unless their situation falls squarely within the narrow exceptions of Rule 23(e)(1). However, for orders issued on or after January 1, 2021, they may be cited for persuasive purposes.

This distinction is crucial for legal practitioners and scholars, as it guides the development of Illinois case law. Published opinions, which are not subject to Rule 23's non-precedential clause, are the primary source of binding legal precedent. Orders like the one in Capital One v. Macklin serve to provide finality for the parties involved without broadly shaping the legal landscape.

Therefore, while the order concludes a chapter for Capital One and Macklin, its impact on the broader legal community is constrained by its procedural classification, emphasizing the Illinois judiciary's structured approach to legal precedent.

The Illinois Appellate Court, specifically the First District, Fourth Division, plays a vital role in the state's judicial hierarchy. It serves as the intermediate court of appeals, reviewing decisions made by circuit courts within its geographical jurisdiction. The First District covers Cook County, making it one of the busiest appellate districts in the state.

When parties are dissatisfied with a circuit court's judgment, they can appeal to this court, seeking a review of legal errors or procedural irregularities. The appellate court's function is to ensure that justice is administered fairly and in accordance with established law.

Issuing orders, whether precedential or non-precedential, is a core function of the appellate court, reflecting its continuous work in resolving legal disputes and providing oversight of trial court proceedings. The order in Capital One v. Macklin represents one such action taken by this significant judicial body.

Source: Details derived from official court filing information.